Comments on: Guardian 25,689 – Rufus

By: Huw Powell

Huw Powell — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:08:08 +0000

It was nice of Rufus to drop in, especially considering that most of us don’t seem too thrilled with today’s outing. But surely if you and the editor were unhappy with firemen?/SMOKERS, I mean STOKERS, the answer could easily have been changed to SCOTERS or SHOWERS (which I almost pencilled in just for fun…).

As people have said, this wasn’t one of Rufus’ best, but everyone will have a range of quality. Lack of a way to be certain on so many answers left me with 8 answers in pencil only, two of which I could have researched to verify.

Thanks to Rufus for the puzzle, and especially for posting; and to manehi for a fine blog.

By: RCWhiting

RCWhiting — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:58:14 +0000

But Innocent A, it is S-O-E-S, setters doesn’t fit.

By: Innocent Abroad

Innocent Abroad — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:37:10 +0000

Trouble in top right 'and corner partly caused my misleading myself into supposing 4D to be "setters". I still think that a better sollution to the clue than the one Rufus used!

By: rhotician

rhotician — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:10:20 +0000

Above should say re 35.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:08:29 +0000

DL @34: You take it wrongly. I only asked a question. I should have asked you to supply definitions rather than to say how you would do so. However your response is satisfactory, in the sense that it provides as much as I want to know. I have no further questions on this matter.

I am sure that the compilers of Chambers are not infallible. None of us is. I will merely say that you have failed to demonstrate their fallibility to my satisfaction and that even if you had it would not make them idiots.

re 34: I did not ask why you have an aversion to anything. In answer to your questions: No, I really don’t want to know. No, I don’t want to know. I was never interested in scoring points off you.

Sorry to have bothered you.

By: Derek Lazenby

Derek Lazenby — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:07:16 +0000

I normally say just father and mother, it is usually obvious that I’m refering to the people with whome I had that relationship. I didn’t own them so why should I phrase it as though I did? But as I said earlier, I sometimes get it wrong.

Yes I would mind if you used that construct, but not everybody thinks through the possession issue, so I would let it pass.

Do you really want to know the root of why I have such an aversion to concepts of possession? Do you want to know the gory details of being a victim of father’s violence and what caused it? I’ll send you an e-mail if you like. I’d rather you just take it that I try damn hard to be the complete opposite and this is part of it. Still interested in point scoring?

Dictionary compilers don’t have motives to mislead, they are merely fallible, a concept which some people have difficulty with, but I don’t know why.

By: Derek Lazenby

Derek Lazenby — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:46:47 +0000

Re pi, I would indicate that pi is an irrational number, nothing more than that. If I was feeling helpful I might also list the sundry ways of evaluating it, only one of which is the circle formula, which is also the least useful formula as it requires the taking of measurements which inevitably introduce measurement inaccuracies. The most computationally useful formulae are in the form of converging infinite series. I would never say it was defined by the circle formula, just that that is one method of evaluation, there are too many evaluation methods nowadays to say that any one of them stands above the other as “the definition”. I might, however, point out that historically the circle formula was regarded as a definition as it was the first known evaluation method.

Re ratio, an alternative way of indicating a division operation which preserves the divisor and dividend information by defering the doing of the division calculation. For example the aspect ratio of a TV is more helpfully represented as a ratio, but once you need to use it in a calculation then you do the division.

I take it you were trying to trap me into a definition which used the word relationship. It has no meaning here.

By: rhotician

rhotician — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:29:40 +0000

DL @31: More questions

Do you refer to your mother as “the mother”? Or your father as “the father”?

If I were to ask “Do you have a wife?” would you mind?

By: rhotician

rhotician — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:57:09 +0000

DL @28: re pi and ratio.

How would The Lazenby Dictionary define these?

(I promise not to ask you to correct any more examples of how the dictionary “idiots mislead the population” nor to say what you think their motives might be.)

By: Derek Lazenby

Derek Lazenby — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:18:37 +0000

I know what the accepted term is Rosalind, but “my” implies possession and the possession of one person by another is called slavery. I object to that. The alternative, to always add a qualification that “my” applies to the relationship but not the person is too clumsy.

Also, most people believe in possessive relationships. That path can lead to jealousy and all the problems that that can bring on. In extremis it leads to domestic violence. No thanks.

So I try not to say “my wife”. But I am merely human and therefore make mistakes (unlike dictionary compilers, LOL), so it sometimes gets said when I’m not concentrating.